2012/5/3 Robert Millan r...@debian.org:
Not it's a mistake, I don't know how I managed that. I am going to fix
that in an upload today.
Thanks!
Christoph, I made a list of packages that might improve somewhat if
they're rebuilt with libc0.1-dev = 2.13-32. Please consider
scheduling rebuilds
2012/5/1 Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org:
Are you sure this is correct? It seems to me that this can be a big
problem if those packages migrate to testing before eglibc does.
Not it's a mistake, I don't know how I managed that. I am going to fix
that in an upload today.
Thanks!
--
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:24:30PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
2012/4/22 Robert Millan r...@debian.org:
I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency
part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new
packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev
2012/4/22 Robert Millan r...@debian.org:
I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency
part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new
packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev depend on libc0.1 =
2.13-31.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: if
Hi,
I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency
part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new
packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev depend on libc0.1 =
2.13-31.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: if this patch is introduced in a later
version
El 22 d’abril de 2012 17:08, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org ha escrit:
I have been mostly away from Debian stuff in the last weeks due to
moving, but i'll try to catchup with glibc stuff during the next days
and schedule an upload for the middle of the week.
Good to hear, thanks.
--
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 03:11:35PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency
part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new
packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev depend on libc0.1 =
2.13-31.
7 matches
Mail list logo
